Coaching boxes

[DJWickham]

The answer to the personal injury liability question is remarkably similar to the ADA question: conduct an individualized assessment of the risk. Deciding who can be on the field based upon a factual investigation of the particular coach's capabilities means: first, you've met the requirements of the ADA even if you conclude that there is an actual safety isssue that can't be accomodated. Second, you've met the test for negligence if you have taken reasonable steps to identify and avoid risks of injury not inherent in the game even if you conclude that there is no basis to ban the person from the field.

Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

Baseball is a game in which there always is a risk of personal injury. The issue always is how much risk is acceptable. In each of the cases I read under the ADA, the coach, like Mr. Oddi, had been on the field for several years without any incident. Indeed, we've all seen collisions with a base coach who was not disabled but distracted. That's part of the game as well. The leagues lose under the ADA when they can't say why they banned this person and identify a specific risk that this person imposed.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA.

As to Casey Martin, I still can't figure out why the PGA claims that golf carts are inconsistent with the game of golf when every golf course makes me rent one.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

I agree that "Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced." I would also suggest that there are two types of prejudice; positive and negative. There are a lot positively prejudiced people who don't believe they are prejudiced. The fact is that people in wheelchairs, or on crutches, ARE different than people who don't need either of these aids. Sure, they are still people with all their attendant wants, needs and desires. They are just not as capable of some tasks. That's a simple fact, not a statement of prejudice. To argue otherwise is to be deluded by a positive prejudice. I'm perfectly willing to see "past" the crutches and the wheelchair, where the circumstances allow me to do so without putting others at risk. However, I cannot blind myself to the all the possibilities simply because there is a wanting, needing individual who is desirous that I do so.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

Sure, I can happily go with the individualised assessment, and not mentally place all people with wheelchairs or crutches in the same category as each other. That's easy. However, all people with wheelchairs or crutches ARE in the same category with respect to each other for at least one thing; they ALL NEED that individualised assessment or they don't bring their wheelchairs or crutches onto my field. If that represents prejudice, then so be it. I have no qualms being positively prejudiced toward the well being of ALL participants on my diamond.

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA.

Now, see Dennis, THAT'S prejudice! No-one here, including me, has put themselves "above the law" on this issue. You are still finding it difficult to acknowledge that the Law speaks to people and groups of people differently. Yes, Dennis, the Law discriminates. If the ADA in this case says to the PIAA that they can't exclude Mr Oddi, that is NOT the same as saying that the umpire association must accept Mr Oddi too! Can you at least understand and accept that?

When and if the ADA speaks directly to the umpire association and its members, or indirectly by direction of the PIAA, demanding they accept Mr Oddi then the individual umpires will have one last decision to make; either obey the law or stop officiating baseball. Until then, however, the law has NOT spoken to the umpires and they remain entitled to make their individual choices without being accused of contempt for the law! The direction it gave, after all, was NOT to them!

As to Casey Martin, I still can't figure out why the PGA claims that golf carts are inconsistent with the game of golf when every golf course makes me rent one.

Again, Dennis, you are refusing to see the wood for the irons. The PGA deals with Professional golf, and your golf course is dealing with an amateur golfer. Professional golfers do NOT use golf carts. Anyone who has ever watched tournament golf can attest to that fact. You will notice that professional golfers don't use hand buggys either! It's just not part of the professional game. If you start making a "special" exception for one golfer because he has a disability, you have disadvantaged ALL of the others who aren't disabled unless you also give them the right to use the aid. Yes, a golf cart is an aid. Why? Because it helps to keep the golfer fresher and fitter for longer.

Dennis, I can appreciate and respect your enthusiasm to play your part in ensuring that negative prejudice and unfair discrimination does NOT figure in our great game. I share that desire. I do so with my eyes open, however. I am not blind to the valid consideration that must be given to the differences these people must deal with in order to participate. If that is all you are asking, you have your agreement. However, in providing the "individualised assessments" of which you speak, please don't ask me to put other participants at risk in the process. That would defeat the whole purpose of the having the assessment in the first place.

In terms of understanding the risk, BTW, rolling the dice is a simple analogy. If you roll the dice a thousand times and do not roll a six even once, the overall risk that a six will be rolled next time around is MUCH GREATER, even if the individual probability remains 1:6 that a six will be rolled. That mathematical principle applies to Mr Oddi, too. If there is any geniune risk, however small its individual probability, that an injury will occur, that otherwise might NOT occur but for the presence of Mr Oddi's crutches in the coach's box, the fact that he has carried them on the diamond for 5 years only INCREASES that risk rather than reducing it.

Cheers,

[Tim C]

This going to be really hard for me,


I agree with Warren (that's the hard part) on Casey Martin.

There I've said it . . . . arrrrrg!

[bake17]

I agree with Warren, coach would not be in uniform of his team and I believe the rules also say a base coach can have nothing in his hands or person but a scorebook.
Interesting subject though!!

Bake17

[Caselli]

I thought I'd seen a lot of baloney when I worked in a meat-packing plant, but here's a new bunch, even within the context of all the amateur legal advice bouncing around this thread. ha! ha!

If there is any geniune risk, however small its individual probability, that an injury will occur, that otherwise might NOT occur but for the presence of Mr Oddi's crutches in the coach's box, the fact that he has carried them on the diamond for 5 years only INCREASES that risk rather than reducing it.

[DJWickham]

Warren, I think we agree on many of the issues of principle (other than whether I will have to bring you a cake (gr).

Most umpires (including me) would prefer to have the disabled prove it is safe for them to be on the field. I don't have the scientific training or access to the necessary data to perform a competent risk analysis. My league doesn't have the funds to employ an expert to advise us on the safety issues. I too don't want to see a serious injury to occur because of a wheelchair 6 feet from third base.

But, in the US, the law is clear and unambigous - - the burden is on those responsible for promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing the ban. As long as teams play in public parks, schools and facilities, the ADA will be the deciding force granting access to the disabled. I don't know of any judge who would tolerate an association not complying with an order to let a coach play on the grounds that the umpires refused to call the game. We can pretend that the law doesn't cover us, but any association or umpire actually faced with this situation will need better advice than simply ban them or walk.

You know it's going to be a tough game when you arrive at the field and see a court reporter.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
But, in the US, the law is clear and unambigous - - the burden is on those responsible for promulgating, interpreting, or enforcing the ban. As long as teams play in public parks, schools and facilities, the ADA will be the deciding force granting access to the disabled. I don't know of any judge who would tolerate an association not complying with an order to let a coach play on the grounds that the umpires refused to call the game. We can pretend that the law doesn't cover us, but any association or umpire actually faced with this situation will need better advice than simply ban them or walk.

Ok, with all the extraneous stuff out of the way under the heading of "a general agreement", the only issue we have remaining is WHEN the individual umpire will be required to enforce this decision under the ADA.

I say the umpire isn't required to enforce it simply by virtue of the ruling itself, and any direction given to the PIAA. I say that only the PIAA is directly bound by that court order. In order for the umpires to be equally bound by that decision, the PIAA has to formally advise its contracted official's association(s) that this is now a requirement for working in their league. That may even involve some changes to the contractual agreements between the two. THEN and only then, IMHO, will the umpires themselves also be bound by the ruling. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I am aware that you are somehow involved in the legal profession, so I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I'm trying to understand whether, under U.S. law, this is a clear legal precedent to be followed regardless of who received the court's order, or whether instead it is a specific ruling for a specific individual that is binding only on the body under its direction; the PIAA. IOW, I'm only looking for free legal advice as to the principles involved. Personally, if I were an officer of the umpire association involved and given the attendant risk to indemnity insurance, I'd want independent legal advice on these points before I went ahead and starting opening the diamond to Mr Oddi and other people in his circumstances.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Caselli
I thought I'd seen a lot of baloney when I worked in a meat-packing plant, but here's a new bunch, even within the context of all the amateur legal advice bouncing around this thread. ha! ha!

Bravo! What a brilliantly insightful interjection of intelligent thought into this difficult and complex discussion! Well done, Caselli!

I have no words to describe how I view your contribution, so this will have to do ... brrrtttt!!!

Cheers,

[PAblue87]

A quick update of the situation:
Just had are first rules meeting since the decision. PIAA has stated that ODDI may coach on the field during live play, and as umpires, we are not allowed to confine him to the dugout. We have also been notified that our umpire association is waived of all liability if an accident or injury should happen as a result of Oddi being on the field.
Also, no other coaches with crutches or other artificial devices are allowed on the field.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PAblue87
A quick update of the situation:
Just had are first rules meeting since the decision. PIAA has stated that ODDI may coach on the field during live play, and as umpires, we are not allowed to confine him to the dugout. We have also been notified that our umpire association is waived of all liability if an accident or injury should happen as a result of Oddi being on the field.
Also, no other coaches with crutches or other artificial devices are allowed on the field.

Fair enough. It couldn't be made any clearer than that! A decision that Mr Oddi as an individual is considered capable of remaining out of harms way, a waiver of any liability to the umpire for letting him be there, and a specific direction that this single ruling isn't a blanket precedent for others with similar implements. No problems. Play ball!

{I think I might add a private congratulatory welcome and an admonition to Mr Oddi, the first time on my diamond, that I expected him to be particularly vigilant and alert while in the coach's box, for all our sakes. While I agree that might be construed as discriminatory, I believe it would equally be in the interests of other disabled coaches to ensure that Mr Oddi doesn't let them down by being careless while working his position.}

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 28th, 2001 at 01:10 AM]

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by PAblue87
A quick update of the situation:
Just had are first rules meeting since the decision. PIAA has stated that ODDI may coach on the field during live play, and as umpires, we are not allowed to confine him to the dugout. We have also been notified that our umpire association is waived of all liability if an accident or injury should happen as a result of Oddi being on the field.
Also, no other coaches with crutches or other artificial devices are allowed on the field.

Sorry, but I still stand pat. What does your association say about umpires that do not wish to be assigned to these games?

[David B]

Our association let's us scratch schools that we do NOT want to go.

I definitely would not go to this school.

They said the umpires association was not liabel. That's not worth anything in court. First time someone is injured, it's

"off to court we go, off to court we go, hi ho the ...

Simply it's too dangerous.

Coach from the bench.

Thanks
David

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DJWickham

Prejudiced people don't think they are prejudiced. They can calmly and rationally discuss their point of view, but it usually is based on the belief that all [whatever] are the same. If we can't see a disabled person as an individual and see past the crutches and the wheelchair, we are prejudiced.

Umpires can take a leading role in this world. Rather than make a ruling based on fear and assumption ("no crutches on my field"), the umpire can make a ruling based on the law. ("Coach, we need to have the league or association perform an individualized assessment of your abilities and the risks of any injury before I can let you on my field.")

It's up to each of us to decide what to do. But, umpires who believe they are above the law won't be umpiring in the future. No league or association can afford to carry those who won't or can't follow the ADA.

Ok let's switch it around a bit. If a disabled person can coach on the bases then why can't a disabled person umpire a game?

What would the coaches reactions be if they saw a PU in a wheelchair or cructhes calling balls / strikes behind Home Plate? How about a BU in a wheelchair and/or crutches on the base-paths?

How long would any coaches association put up with this?

If we are going to allow a disabled coach to be involved in live ball activity then we have to allow disabled umpires to umpire a game otherwise we would be discriminating against umpires using your argument.

As I mentioned earlier, we are not saying to the disabled individual You can't be involved at all . We are saying let's use precaution, just as if a disabled umpire were allowed to umpire a game.

Pete Booth

[DJWickham]

Pete: Great question. The bad news is that there might not be a lawful basis to ban all disabled umpires. I think we'll see some litigation on this.

Warren: The law stuff is pretty boring, but it is a myth that a non-party is not subject to an injunction (at least in the US). Here' what one federal court said on the question:

"Nonparties are liable for contempt of an injunction if, with notice of the injunction, the nonparty aids or abets the enjoined party in the violation of the injunction or if the nonparty is a successor in interest to the property subject to litigation. Panther Pumps & Equipment Co. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8, 12 (7th Cir. 1977). cert. denied, [*11] 435 U.S. 1013 (1978); Herrlein v. Kanakis, 526 F.2d 252, 254 (7th Cir. 1975); Waffenschmidt v. Mackay, 763 F.2d 711, 714 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1056, 88 L. Ed. 2d 771, 106 S. Ct. 794 (1986). As the court stated in Chanel Industries, Inc. v. Pierre Marche, Inc., 199 F. Supp. 748, 753 (E.D. Mo. 1961):

'The injunction of the Court is binding upon the parties-defendant and those in privity with them so that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibitive acts through aiders and abettors although they were not parties to the original proceeding. . . . Courts have repeatedly held that if a person has actual knowledge of an injunction he may be amenable to it even where not a party to the suit and was not served with a copy of the injunction. . . . Id. at 753.'

The policy behind extending an injunction to non-party agents of enjoined defendants is simply to prevent defendants from indirectly nullifying a decree by carrying out prohibited acts [*12] through aiders and abettors or successors in interest. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14, 89 L. Ed. 661, 65 S. Ct. 478 (1945)."

As a practical matter, the judge won't care about what the umpires do as long as the game gets played in compliance with the order. If all umpires refuse to participate or if a game gets suspended because an umpire leaves the field, then someone may need their toothbrush. In the words of one of our local judges: "You may have come in through the front door, but you are going out the back door!"

[Edited by DJWickham on Mar 28th, 2001 at 12:34 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
Warren: The law stuff is pretty boring, but it is a myth that a non-party is not subject to an injunction (at least in the US). Here' what one federal court said on the question:

[...]

As a practical matter, the judge won't care about what the umpires do as long as the game gets played in compliance with the order. If all umpires refuse to participate or if a game gets suspended because an umpire leaves the field, then someone may need their toothbrush. In the words of one of our local judges: "You may have come in through the front door, but you are going out the back door!"

[Edited by DJWickham on Mar 28th, 2001 at 12:34 PM]